ANKARA
Israel would rather see Syria’s Assad regime stay in power as "the devil we know" than deal with the specter of increased instability and the rise of extremist groups on its northeastern border, according to Israeli and Turkish experts.
Prof. Eyal Zisser, dean of humanities at Tel Aviv University, described recent Israeli attacks on targets in Syria as "controlled", saying they were not intended to bring down the regime.
"Israel fears the departure of [Syrian President Bashar] al-Assad," he said. "Since the start of the conflict in 2011, the balance of power between the warring factions has been balanced, so Israel has refrained from intervening."
"Israel has only intervened in Syria to retaliate against rockets that fall on its territory or to hit Iranian-backed Hezbollah targets near its borders," he added.
"Thus far," Zisser added, "spillover from the Syrian side [into Israel] has been mostly accidental; the result of fighting between the regime and opposition groups."
Regarding occasional Israeli attacks on Hezbollah targets in Syria, Zisser said, "Of course, if Israel believes the group is mounting an organized attack, it takes the necessary steps."
Summing up Israel’s overall Syria policy, Zisser asserted: "Israel wants a stable and quiet border with Syria, which was possible under Assad; In fact, Israel stands to benefit from either a strong or weak regime."
"A strong regime in Syria ensures a stable border," he explained, "while a weak regime will be unable to respond to Israeli attacks on Hezbollah targets."
A staunch ally of Assad, Lebanon’s Shia Hezbollah militant group has been fighting alongside regime forces in Syria since 2012.
Russia
According to Zisser, Israel also has concerns about Russian military intervention in Syria, which since Sept. 30 has included airstrikes on anti-Assad positions.
"Russian warplanes [in Syrian airspace] restrict the movement of Israeli planes," he said.
"Israel prefers a U.S. presence in Syria to a Russian one, of course, but the U.S. is gradually withdrawing from Syria, allowing Russia to fill the vacuum," he added.
Following a recent meeting with Russian officials to coordinate flights over Syria, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "We sometimes operate in Syria to protect our interests and prevent any fronts from forming against us."
Netanyahu went on to note that Israel had agreed with Russian President Vladimir Putin to step up coordination on their respective air operations in Syria with a view to "preventing any possible mistakes".
Golan Heights
Israel and Syria have engaged in three major conflicts, in 1948, 1967 (when Israel occupied the Syrian Golan Heights) and 1973. While the two countries have held on-again, off-again peace talks, these have failed to result in any breakthroughs.
From 2000, when Bashar al-Assad took over the presidency from his father, Hafez, to March 2011, when the current conflict began, Bashar, like his father, had pursued a policy of pragmatism vis-à-vis his country’s longstanding enemy.
For most of the Bashar al-Assad period, Israel’s border with Syria remained quiet.
Israel appeared pleased with the younger Assad’s regime, holding its tongue when the anti-regime protests -- which would quickly escalate into a heavily armed (if highly fragmented) opposition -- began in early 2011.
Netanyahu’s first public comment on the war in next-door Syria (made in June 2011) was that Israel planned to stay out of the conflict.
The following year, he said the gravest threat facing Israel from Syria was the potential overthrow of the Assad regime and the possibility of its chemical weapons arsenal falling into Hezbollah’s hands.
Four months later, Israel was drawn into the Syrian conflict -- albeit peripherally -- when several mortar shells fired from the Syrian side of the ceasefire line landed near an Israeli army outpost in the occupied Golan Heights.
According to former Israel Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Alon Liel, there are two primary red lines in terms of Israel's current Syria policy.
"Israel prefers a regime in Syria that makes no claims on the Golan Heights and which prevents missiles from falling on the territory," said Liel.
He added that Israel already faced threats from the south, including from the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, and had little appetite for another potential warfront.
Breaking up Syria
Oytun Orhan, a Middle East analyst at the Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies (ORSAM), a Turkish think tank, said Israel was not opposed to the breakup of Syria -- a scenario he described as "both an opportunity and a threat" for Israel.
According to Orhan, Syria would pose less of a threat to Israel if it were divided into several small statelets instead of constituting a single powerful country.
He was quick to add, however, that this would depend on what political powers controlled these statelets.
Assessing possible division scenarios for Syria and their potential impact on Israel, Orhan said: "Israel doesn't want a radical Sunni-controlled area near its border as this would jeopardize Jordan’s security, which is essential for Israel."
"If a Daesh-controlled state appeared, for example, this would constitute a major threat to Israel," he added, "while if an Alawite state emerged, [Shia] Iran may intervene in the region -- another possible threat to Israel."
He asserted: "Israel could accept a Druze-controlled state, which might stand by Israel due to the significant Druze population inside Israel’s borders. This could form a buffer zone between the conflicted Syrian region, Israel and Jordan."
Orhan went on to stress that the emergence of future Sunni or Alawite regions carved out of Syria would have critical implications for Israel’s safety.
"The Syrian threat used to have a single dimension for Israel," he said. "Israel knew the threats posed by the Assad regime and vice versa."
"Now the threat is multidimensional," he concluded. ''The new actors in Syria don’t know Israel and how it responds to threats; they’re irrational and difficult to control.''
